Olga Curtis v. ShinSachi Pharmaceutical Inc et al
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE. GOVERNING LAW by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff Olga Curtis to SHOW CAUSE in writing by Monday, September 8, 2014, why the Court should apply California law to this action. No hearing will be held; Curtis shall respond in writing. Curtis should address issues such as California governmental-interest approach for conflict of laws, whether Idaho recognizes a trade-libel tort, and whether there are any inconsistencies between the intentional-interference claims under California and Idaho law. Failure to timely respond will result in dismissal for lack of prosecution. (lc). Modified on 8/28/2014. (lc).
United States District Court
Central District of California
Case № 2:14-cv-00591-ODW(SSx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE.
SHINSACHI PHARMACEUTICAL INC.; GOVERNING LAW
SEUNGWOO SHIN; DOES 1–10,
On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff Olga Curtis moved for entry of default judgment
against Defendants ShinSachi Pharmaceutical Inc. and Seungwoo Shin.
No. 24.) She argues that she is entitled to judgment on various common-law claims,
including trade libel, intentional interference with contract, and intentional
interference with prospective economic advantage. In asserting these claims, she
applies California law but provides no reason why California and not Idaho law
applies. Curtis alleges that she resides and has her principal place of business in
Idaho, which may establish that Idaho has an interest in having its law applied to this
The Court also notes that it does not appear that Idaho recognizes a tort called
“trade libel,” though California does. This conflict must be resolved before the Court
can adjudicate Curtis’s claim under that name. But both California and Idaho seem to
apply identical elements for intentional-interference claims.
The Court therefore ORDERS Curtis to SHOW CAUSE in writing by
Monday, September 8, 2014, why the Court should apply California law to this
action. No hearing will be held; Curtis shall respond in writing. Curtis should address
issues such as California’ governmental-interest approach for conflict of laws,
whether Idaho recognizes a trade-libel tort, and whether there are any inconsistencies
between the intentional-interference claims under California and Idaho law. Failure to
timely respond will result in dismissal for lack of prosecution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 28, 2014
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?